Shibbyland

If the module is done, they should take the early access tag away then and call it released. But the module isn't done. It is entirely reasonable to expect developers to continue to invest man-hours into modules labelled "early access". On 17 September 2021, BINEWY stated AI like petrovich "is planned for later on in early access". Four years, it's not even possible to ask the navigator to tune a navaid nor is it possible to switch to navigator position and have an AI pilot maintain level flight. These are barebones features of a multicrew aircraft, far below the standard of others in the game and yet the mosquito doesn't even have that. Eagle Dynamics own website states "Early Access is an option for you to play this module in an early state, but it will be incomplete with bugs" As this module retains the early access label then by EDs own definition, it is still in an early state and WILL be incomplete with bugs. In terms of defining "abandoned". This is more difficult to do however the standard at least on Steam is as follows: An early access release is considered abandoned when developers have not released a new update in 12 months or more. I've gone back 29 changelogs, 1 year. In that time only two additions or fixes have been made to the Mosquito. A warning horn has been fixed and a radio command to AI has been added. I haven't gone back further than 1 year as I gave up trying to find meaningful content being added to advance the module toward completion. Rudel, if you're satisfied with the module then wonderful for you. I'm not and it would appear others aren't either. I don't agree the thread is "dramatic" nor do I agree that expecting developers to complete modules is "unrealistic". Not only have there been no meaningful additions but repeated enquiries about ongoing development have gone unanswered. Providing feedback to developers is generally considered part and parcel of early access. The feedback appears to be, there's too much remaining in early access for too long with too little info as to why. Personally, I've stopped making early access purchases with ED as I no longer have confidence in it. I continue to check back and may make further purchases as modules are completed.

If you're not providing updates and you're not giving owners of early access modules a response when they ask what development is being done, then the module is effectively abandoned. This module is dated before its even been completed. Why should people keep buying EA modules if this is how development is going to go. It's the same with the supercarrier, just endless early access.

Just had a look through the last changelog, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that. Still nothing for the Mosquito. Came back to see if there'd been an answer to my post above (made in April), there hasn't been so I suppose I'll ask again. What internal work is being done? Is there a timeline for release?

I also have this bug. I've got performance issues with the F4u after latest update too. Very choppy particularly in flyby view. No issues with other modules, I've got a pretty decent system too.

I’ve just been talking to a guy I know who flies the Corsair and this is what he had to say: “The takeoff isn’t too bad as long as trims are set but we set take off power in two stages”. He went on to say it would expect it to be horrendous applying full power from stationary for take off. I also asked whether it felt weighty compared to other period fighters he’s flown. He said ”it’s light and balanced. A pleasure to fly. Easy in the air, a beast on the ground”. So just based on this one pilots input I think they’ve got the flight characteristics in game a bit back to front. In game I find the aircraft all over the show once airborne and really easy to take off and land. Sounds like it should be the other way round.

I've been playing around a little with curves. I'm using a TM16000m as that's the best I can get right now. Anyway I've reduced saturation Y on pitch to 60 and set curvature to 20. It's tolerable now but I still think the aircraft feels way too light. I did a trial of the Christen Eagle just to get a comparison to M3s other prop based module and it feels more authentic with exact same curves. The best word I could use to describe the Corsairs handling in this game is jagged and thats in all regards, the ground too. It's just so so pointy, like a go kart. I don't regret buying the module, it's seriously good looking and such a cool aeroplane but yea I go from the F4u to the P-47 and I find myself wishing the F4u had the same feel to it.

I agree, take off very easy, landing really easy too. Aircraft flies like a small aerobat. Fingers crossed it goes through some meaningful development.

Haven't flown a Corsair (but I know people who have so I could probably ask them). That being said, I've flown other aircraft from light to heavy and I find the flight model of the F4u in game unconvincing. Well done to Magnitude 3 for what they've achieved. The aircraft looks awesome, the carrier is great too and I'm stoked we've got at least some Pacific theatre content (fingers crossed with the potential for more) after years of waiting. But yea I really hope they work on the flight model. The aircraft has absolutely no feel of weight, it's super pitchy, it feels weird on the ground and I didn't notice any of the usual flight sim genre cues that warn of the stall. They could probably give the aircraft much greater feel by giving the player feedback through more sound. The Corsair is a big machine, it weighs more empty than some models of Spitfire fully loaded and yet in game it flies like a little aerobat. If you haven't already bought it, I'd recommend holding off and seeing how development progresses, it's just a bit arcadey at the moment.

I had to upgrade my mobo and therefore a heap of other stuff just so I could get windows 11 (and I still haven't gotten round to grabbing the upgrade). Old mobo (and it wasn't even that old) didn't meet security requirements. I just about spat out my tea when I saw how much prices had gone up on hardware when essentially everything was running just how I wanted it to. That being said I just blasted across the Syria map in the f-14 and got performance I've never had access to before.

I recently upgraded my CPU, mobo, RAM and cooling mostly because my old mobo couldn't support windows 10. I went with i7 14700k but still only have 32gb of RAM, albeit it's DDR5. The performance increase from my old i7 9700k is incredible. I'm not a VR player and I'd love to have 64gb RAM but I just ran out of money and as much as people say RAM is cheap, it's not where I live but I'll add a couple more sticks down the track when I've saved up. Holding off getting the cold war map until I get 64gb.

I've got water cooling but it's only a 240mm, Corsair nautilus. It's TDP is 250watts. Price was becoming an issue with this build and looking at my case, I think i'd be struggling to fit anything much bigger than 240 coolling. I'm not running DCS maxed out tho. Next move is to increase to 64gb RAM but where I live, RAM is actually pretty expensive so I wait. I was previously running an i7 9700k but that was only air cooled and I haven't increased my settings since the upgrade. I just wanted to be able to run the more intense maps at the same settings. I build my PC for DCS as thats the most intense thing I run, otherwise I'm playing games that require only half the performance. Cheers for all your input.

I've recently upgraded to an i7 14700k. I don't overclock so it's clock speed is 3.4gHz. This is below the recommended settings for many terrains in DCS and yet I'm able to run them reasonably well. I only play at 1080p but with textures high and pretty good shadows. How come I'm able to achieve this performance when my clock speed is so much lower than recommended. Should I be overclocking and how do I do this without damaging parts? I've got water cooling. Edit: The CPUs base clock speed is 3.4gHz but it's obviously capable of higher. Does it boost to a higher frequency automatically if demand is high? System specs: i7 14700k, z790 mobo, 32gb DDR5 RAM, GeForce 4070. DCS on standalone nvme with 500gb space free.

Just saw a video reckoning it needs 64GB of RAM to run well. Is this true? I'm running 32gb DDR4 with an RTX 4070 at 1080p and find Syria pretty good. Marianas I've always found not so great. Thoughts on this?

What internal work is being done? Is there a timeline for release? I've just scrolled back through all changelogs to January 2024 and unless I missed something, the mosquito only features twice (not including third party campaigns). Once for a fix to tailwheel and once for a fix to AI bombing after the player. That's not really meaningful development of the module. It's not all that different for modules like the supercarrier and the hind.

If I already own the full fidelity version of the aircraft featured in flaming cliffs 2024 AND I already own flaming cliffs, is there any benefit from having the upgrade? New campaigns or anything?

What work, if any, is still being done on this? It's been early access for a long time now and it's as if it's been forgotten. Still hanging out for some ability for the AI to operate the aircraft so player can act as navigator or at least for the player to direct an AI navigator to tune radios, navaids etc.

Feels forgotten. Been waiting for basic AI pilot stuff for literal years now. Even just the ability for ai pilot to fly straight and level, or orbit just so one can use the navigator position during missions...better yet, being able to ask the navigator to tune frequencies would be great. So much early access, so much money spent, map after map after map with little content to actually do in them. I've stopped making purchases due to lack of confidence.

Roger dodger, thank you very much

@BIGNEWY I'm having a hard time finding out what the anticipated file size is likely to be. Can you give an estimate please, even if this is subject to change, are we talking circa 150GB or over 200GB? Could it be as much as 300GB with the detail and size, full map I mean, not just sectors. Would like to purchase before update, but holding off as that file size is a major factor for me.

On that note tho, if I were to run out of space and end up getting a bigger nvme, what's the easiest way of transferring DCS to it without having to redownload it all? Is it as simple as just dragging the several hundred gigs over to the new one?

A 2TB nvme where I live is nearly $400 local currency. It’s a no go from my end. I’ve got a half full 1tb nvme solely for DCS. Got most modules and Persia, Syria, Nevada, Normandy 2.0 and Marianas as added maps.

Still really keen to have an idea of file size for the entire map. Have had to avoid other maps due file size as I just don’t have the space on my SSD and I don’t intend to buy a 2TB one just for DCS. Would like to preorder the entire map but if it’s going to be much bigger than 150gb it’s gonna be a struggle.

Any indication of potential file size anywhere for the complete map once released? It's getting difficult to fit DCS on my 1TB Nvme and I'm not gonna buy a new one for a while.

I'm not sure if my bug is the same but it does affect mission 2. I take off BEFORE smoke as detailed in the brief. I track to waypoint 1 and get the radio message that im tracking to waypoint 2. Smoke gets airborne, climbs to 1900ft and then just does a big circuit around the ship, he doesn't land or track anywhere in particular. He simply does not join up. I'm NOT running any mods or voice attack. I have tried this in both ST and MT, the issue is the same. Have had to give up for now.

Just to confirm, is this fixed now or is it next update? I'm mission 2, launched before wingman but he just flys around at 1900ft doing nothing.